U.S. considers solo strikes on Damascus after Cameron loses key vote on British military action in Syria

President Barack Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament. Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.

British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government which had seemed days away from joining the U.S. in possible attacks to punish Bashar al-Assad’s regime over an alleged chemical weapons attack.

Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in practice the rejection of military strikes means Cameron’s hands are tied. In a terse statement to Parliament, Cameron said it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action.

Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.

“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.

Cameron told an emergency sitting of Parliament that the country should not be “paralysed” over its response to international crises in the wake of mistakes made in the run-up to the Iraq war.

He implored MPs to “force themselves” to watch harrowing videos of children suffering following a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week which killed more than 300 ordinary Syrians.

However, Mr Cameron failed to win all-party support for a government motion supporting the principle of military action and late last night lost the vote by 272 to 285, a majority of 13 against.

A further vote of MPs will be necessary next week before Britain becomes directly involved in strikes.

The country’s response to the Syrian civil war is threatening to cause one of the most serious political rifts over the deployment of the Armed Forces since the Suez crisis in 1956.

Related

Ed Miliband refused to support the Government’s parliamentary motion, saying that he was, as yet, not fully convinced of the case against the Assad regime.

The decision invited anger from Downing Street which accused the Labour leader of “giving succour” to the Syrian dictator.

This was strongly denied by senior Labour sources who said that the behaviour of Mr Cameron’s aides was “frankly insulting”.

The decision invited anger from Downing Street which accused the Labour leader of “giving succour” to the Syrian dictator

Mr. Miliband was dealt a blow before the vote by the resignation of Jim Fitzpatrick, the shadow transport spokesman.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said he could not vote for Labour’s amendment to the Government’s motion, which calls for “compelling evidence” that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, after telling the Commons that he was “opposed to military intervention in Syria, full stop”.

It is the first time in more than 50 years that the opposition has voted against the Government on the issue of the deployment of Armed Forces.